I didn't know that so my apologies, but the point stands. You guys might still be in SL doing really well if Thompson had stayed.

Re your last paragraph. Are you saying you are against investor money?. To generate it all yourself is fine but all the teams in SL with the exceptiion of Cas have investor input as part of their strategy.

Depends what you mean by investor money.

It has to be given, not lent. And the danger is that the plug might be pulled - as it was in 1999.

Good for the Eagles aiming to have more people playing RL in and around Sheffield and good luck to their support for the game extending to the east midlands. What a great club.

And they truly are moving in the right direction but their own chairman admits they are "nowhere near" SL.

So it's fair to take the view that Eagles have no chance of SL for a long time, if ever.

That's not to bemoan what they are admirably trying to do to extend the game beyond the M62. I don't find it depressing that our minority game is becoming a minority game all over the country as opposed to being non existent pre-1996.

As I say the clubs who are succeeding in SL and the clubs who may go on to succeed have the benefit of over 100 years of development rooted in a time when soccer was not everything.

Sheffield's achievements against their handicap in this area should be applauded loudly, but sadly the same handicap prevents them from being likely SL material.

They beat off many traditional clubs to be top championship dog. What spoilt that for me was the immediate cry for Eagles in SL. The Eagles are a great success in what they are doing today......

This seems to be the exact opposite of what you said about Crusaders. They had to be in SL immediately and the finances didn't matter. There was no benefit in them being in NL1.

Expansion franchises work in the NRL and NFL because they build relationships with the media, ensuring that each new club has the visibility required to generate interest. That doesn't happen in Superleague, both through our own lack of effort and through being perceived by the media as a provincial sport. Sheffield could succeed in Superleague, but it would require a marketing budget far greater than clubs in Superleague currently work with, and a level of expertise that currently does not exist in our code in the UK. There have been rare brazen efforts to stretch limited funds in the past that have generated interest for the likes of Bradford and Keighley on a smaller stage, but outside of that most clubs are sitting on their hands. Most marketing people in UK rugby league should be sacked for laziness and a lack of vision.

To be quite clear, I don't believe that the likes of London or Sheffield can ever rise to the levels they should, unless the RFL makes some drastic changes in regards to how they market the game on behalf of the clubs whilst forging stronger ties with the media. Staff dedicated to growing the relationships our sport has with the national and local media, outside of current marketing strategies is vital. Without it nothing will change for the better.

At least in SL they would get SL cash and be able to attract an investor. With the current "promotion by panel" system, no-one in their right mind would invest big money in an NL1 club

So you are saying that Eagles with no money, few fans and no SL quality kids in their junior system, with a Championship quality side, and only and a few months to try to improve it, and few players available before the ONE season in SL starts........

Is an attractive proposition to investors?????

It just isn't is it. Time you dropped that one. Investors do not come forward for the small Championship clubs because

1. They are not there.

2. If they are they realise the investment would mean millions of pounds over the years only to be always struggling like all the other smaller clubs.

The only attractive proposition for investment was Bradford who had up to 15,000 fans and a lot of good junior players.

Expansion franchises work in the NRL and NFL because they build relationships with the media, ensuring that each new club has the visibility required to generate interest. That doesn't happen in Superleague, both through our own lack of effort and through being perceived by the media as a provincial sport. Sheffield could succeed in Superleague, but it would require a marketing budget far greater than clubs in Superleague currently work with, and a level of expertise that currently does not exist in our code in the UK. There have been rare brazen efforts to stretch limited funds in the past that have generated interest for the likes of Bradford and Keighley on a smaller stage, but outside of that most clubs are sitting on their hands. Most marketing people in UK rugby league should be sacked for laziness and a lack of vision.

To be quite clear, I don't believe that the likes of London or Sheffield can ever rise to the levels they should, unless the RFL makes some drastic changes in regards to how they market the game on behalf of the clubs whilst forging stronger ties with the media. Staff dedicated to growing the relationships our sport has with the national and local media, outside of current marketing strategies is vital. Without it nothing will change for the better.

That's very true but for me the slant of your post is towards "If only we had money and marketing expertise"

I agree far more with your "regional game" analysis.

Of course you can sell an NFL team in the USA and of course you can sell an NRL team in Australia, countries where these sports are the top sports.

The Lewis expansion years have shown exactly what the problems are and so I don't agree with you we need a lot of money, the right staff, the right vision etc etc.

In a country heavily dominated by Soccer and where there is a strong rival code we cannot realistically create pro clubs up and down the country even at the low turnover of approx £4M per year. Besides no money there's no infrastructure and little resource.

Superleague has to put it's efforts and investment into where the game is strong.

Could make an agrument that Sheffield is not as big as either London or Wales however the Eagles do have players from South Yorkshire.

OK so let's say over the years they have had a couple of crackerjacks from Barnsley, and a couple of promising kids from Sheffield and Derbyshire. Would that make them a good proposition for Superleague?

As it stands now we have a licensing system which needs to be adhered to, depending on who you are of course, which involves being able to attract a reasonable crowd, cash, stadium, junior development et al.

Terry, this was posted and not challenged........

"Contrast that with Fev - bigger crowds, more successful on the field, own their own ground - lost £80000ish and £90000ish in 2009 and 2010 respectively. 2011 accounts might be better - on the other hand, they're overdue at Companies House and that generally means bad news".

"Contrast that with Fev - bigger crowds, more successful on the field, own their own ground - lost £80000ish and £90000ish in 2009 and 2010 respectively. 2011 accounts might be better - on the other hand, they're overdue at Companies House and that generally means bad news".

Parky, how come your terms and conditions for a SL team in Sheffield are completely different to those of Wales or other expansion areas?

You can't keep peddling this "there are no players from Sheffield" line. There were no London players or Welsh players before their SL clubs (and that doesn't count "grandparent rules" or union converts).

There are Welsh born players in Superleague now and Welsh born lads in the academy system.

RL desperately needs more areas to produce quality players, London and Wales were the areas and they have worked.

But you stick to the garbage you spouted for years about how the RFL didn't know what they were doing and were wasting all that money etc etc etc. The RFL had to try to expand the player base.

They had to try but they tried the wrong way and lost their cash. If you think the 700k loaned to Crusaders (let alone the SKy money) for a handful (less than you count on the fingers of one hand) of Welsh lads to play SL is value for money then you've lost the plot. Especially since you argued that a Welsh SL club was essentially for growing the grassroots game - ironically a Welsh league operated before Crusaders came along but collapsed after they disappeared.

It certainly was not expanding in sheffield. Now for your homework I suggest you make two lists, a list of Sheffield born lads in Superleague and a list on London and Wales born lads in Superleague.

Compare and contrast.

And yet you argue for Wales and London that nobody from those areas can play at SL level without a pro club "on their doorstep" (which seems to mean up to 5 hours away) yet somehow it doesn't seem to work that way with Sheffield, The fact that few Sheffield lads are in SL now is somehow evidence that this is something that cannot be changed.

Which means that if having a SL side alone created these players (as Parky argues ad naseum) then he is a hypocrite for arguing that a lack of Sheffield SL players means that they shouldn't ever get a SL licence.

Which means that if having a SL side alone created these players (as Parky argues ad naseum) then he is a hypocrite for arguing that a lack of Sheffield SL players means that they shouldn't ever get a SL licence.